Comments by PWhttps://www.techdirt.com/
Easily digestible tech news....https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150413/11493530639/zenefits-allowed-back-into-utah-after-insurance-brokers-tried-to-kill-innovative-startup.shtml#c21
Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:28:16 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150413/11493530639/zenefits-allowed-back-into-utah-after-insurance-brokers-tried-to-kill-innovative-startup.shtml#c21Governments position amusing...https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150129/06262129848/nobody-saw-this-coming-now-china-too-wants-company-encryption-keys-backdoors-hardware-software.shtml#c232
Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:44:38 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150129/06262129848/nobody-saw-this-coming-now-china-too-wants-company-encryption-keys-backdoors-hardware-software.shtml#c232Aren't we missing something here?https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20150127/16425229834/what-would-google-mvno-do-differently.shtml#c9
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:02:49 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20150127/16425229834/what-would-google-mvno-do-differently.shtml#c9It's Knight Rider's faulthttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141209/03232129366/no-tech-companies-cant-easily-create-contentid-harassment-it-would-be-disaster-if-they-did.shtml#c754
Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:43 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141209/03232129366/no-tech-companies-cant-easily-create-contentid-harassment-it-would-be-disaster-if-they-did.shtml#c754I recall attending the biggest conference in Vegas at the time, COMDEX, and doing demos at our booth, showing how it could be used with popular PC programs like Lotus 1-2-3. Imagine if you will, a guy wearing a headset talking to a luggable computer running Lotus saying, "column width"..."1"..."2"..."enter"..."up"..."left"..."equals"..."equals"..."EQUALS!"..."sum"..."b"..."5"..."thru"..."thru"..."THRU!"..."f"..."5"... ok, you get the gist. To lots the technologists this was amazing. They loved it and were willing to part with $495 to get their gadget fix on. However, the non-technologists would always ask, "what's so amazing about that? There's a car on TV that can talk."...damn you Knight Rider! ;)

I worked for a company called Impermium acquired by Google, that focused exclusively on social media spam and offensive language around comments and other public social media spaces. I now work at real-time streaming social media management company that offers a commenting platform and has developed its own spam and offensive language detection systems. It's striking to see the lengths that people are willing to go through to avoid detection from spewing their negativity (or commercial messages) and one quickly realizes the number of different ways that make the problem of managing this near intractable. When combining this with the number of innocent interactions that can be misinterpreted outside of the context of the participants, makes one appreciate the complexity of this problem which ContentID can only scratch the surface of the surface on.

Fortunately, Sarah Jeong did a great take down of ContentID, but what Ms. Valenti clearly doesn't understand is that there are lots of people and companies actually trying to solve this immensely complex problem. The flip side of the tech ignorant is that they're also tech idealists, and nothing exemplifies this more than how she set-up her piece. There are cars on TV that can understand us, therefore making a computer program understand is easy. There are technologies for picking off exact duplicates of TV shows, movies and music, so picking off duplicates of contextual references should be easy...oy!]]>Re: Please warn of paywalled articleshttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141124/07011329232/ridiculously-misinformed-opinion-piece-wsj-asks-apple-google-to-make-everyone-less-safe.shtml#c336
Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:38:32 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141124/07011329232/ridiculously-misinformed-opinion-piece-wsj-asks-apple-google-to-make-everyone-less-safe.shtml#c336Prevailing irony ;)https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141120/12365129211/reuters-recode-care-so-very-much-about-conversation-that-theyre-asking-commenters-to-leave.shtml#c398
Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:23:36 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141120/12365129211/reuters-recode-care-so-very-much-about-conversation-that-theyre-asking-commenters-to-leave.shtml#c398Commitmenthttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141120/12365129211/reuters-recode-care-so-very-much-about-conversation-that-theyre-asking-commenters-to-leave.shtml#c89
Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:58:51 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141120/12365129211/reuters-recode-care-so-very-much-about-conversation-that-theyre-asking-commenters-to-leave.shtml#c89Re/Code, for its part, is operated by a small team who might not have felt able to provide the attention needed to make their comments section more valuable. If they had asked me, I would have suggested that they try different ways of seeking higher quality interactions by vetting users (whether through attendance to their events, creating paywall for comments, or other means). As well, there's nothing that says that a site *MUST* allow all comments on their site, and just like they curate and select the stories that will appear on their site, they should be moderating out low quality commentary (as they see fit). I would have considered allowing the community of readers to vote comments up or down (a la Quora) as a means of pushing up the higher quality content while pushing down the noise or the trite responses.

Net-net however, all of this requires a commitment level that it doesn't feel like any of these publishers have. What's sad is that finding a central place where a conversation on a story is happening is not easy on the social networks (unless you actively search for it). If people are commenting on Twitter and Facebook, and you're not connected to them, then it's unlikely that you will see this conversation. That's disappointing. Twitter and Facebook have their place, but nothing can substitute for the original publisher of a story to act as central source for the conversation on the topics covered.]]>Conflating the "free" argumenthttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140910/17522128488/u2-still-insists-no-value-free-music-despite-making-millions-it.shtml#c775
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:28:56 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140910/17522128488/u2-still-insists-no-value-free-music-despite-making-millions-it.shtml#c775When we get to the producer of content (in this case musicians), producing music is only one aspect of the "business of providing consumers with music". Other aspects of this business include getting attention for their music, which they can do by buying ads, getting friends or fans to review their music on music review sites, or getting distributors of music to feature their music in exchange for a percentage of each sale they generate. If they don't have the funds or the friends/fans to get attention, then giving their music away is their marketing cost. In other words, they paid with their content instead of with paying money to publications (for advertising) or distributors (sales commissions).

If they're not in the "business" of making music but do so as hobbyists, then there should be no expectation of making money, unless in giving it away they develop a following and can then choose to market their music in other ways to better monetize it. Of course, many musicians may view themselves as being in the business of making music, but to the extent that their best monetization option is by performing concerts then they should realize that their value proposition is as an entertainer not a content producer. If it's in selling paraphernalia or other items relating to their brand, then they are retailers or distributors of that content. The music itself becomes just their currency of exchange for marketing which they believe presents a favorable ROI against the business that they are really in.

It's silly to have arguments about "free" without some context around what's being exchanged and what free really is. Heck, some times I wonder if there's anything that's really free any more...certainly not anything on the Internet ;)]]>Another possibility...https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140218/00331426256/ignorant-ny-times-reporter-argues-that-public-domain-is-damaging-film.shtml#c49
Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:13:17 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140218/00331426256/ignorant-ny-times-reporter-argues-that-public-domain-is-damaging-film.shtml#c49"That the NY Times would publish such a piece highlights, yet again, how the famed newspaper so frequently appears to have little actual knowledge of the subjects it covers, often being a useful propaganda engine for certain special interests who can "place" a bogus story in a way that can have an impact on policies."

...OR the NY Times knows exactly what it's doing and siding with copyright maximalists :(]]>To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the questionhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130910/11594924472/appeals-court-upholds-dangerous-ruling-that-wifi-sniffing-is-wiretapping.shtml#c303
Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:19:46 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130910/11594924472/appeals-court-upholds-dangerous-ruling-that-wifi-sniffing-is-wiretapping.shtml#c303 By way of analogy, sending a sealed envelope by "snail mail" offers no real protection beyond that which the seal's glue can provide. One could argue that it's not much protection, and yet we have developed laws as a means of building trust in that form of communication, that an opened sealed envelope by someone other than who it was originally addressed to, is a federal offense, and this carries harsh penalties. In other words, just because it's technically feasible to open an envelope (or to sniff a data stream) doesn't mean it should be legal. For their to be a modicum of trust in these communications, there needs to be disincentives. Of course, my disincentive logic fails immediately when we learn that the NSA isn't subject to any of this ;)

But in an interview with NBC News, portions of which aired on Sunday, he called the disclosures "literally gut-wrenching" and said they had caused "huge, grave damage" to US intelligence capabilities.

"The NSA has filed a crimes report on this already," Clapper told NBC, referring to the leaks to The Guardian and The Washington Post.

He said he was "profoundly offended" that a disgruntled intelligence officer was a source for the leak to the Post. "This is someone who for whatever reason has chosen to violate a sacred trust for this country," he said.

Wow! Someone should explain to him that "deeply offended" is an understatement of how we feel about his actions and that lying to Congress should more than offend him, it should incarcerate him ;)]]>They did!https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/00140723387/remember-when-supreme-court-rejected-review-fisa-amendments-act-because-it-was-too-speculative-that-plaintiffs-were-being.shtml#c29
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:03:32 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/00140723387/remember-when-supreme-court-rejected-review-fisa-amendments-act-because-it-was-too-speculative-that-plaintiffs-were-being.shtml#c29http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-seeks-secret-court-opinions-authorizing-nsas-mass]]>Only himself to blamehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/01385123392/author-patriot-act-says-nsa-surveillance-is-abuse-must-end.shtml#c63
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:12:14 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/01385123392/author-patriot-act-says-nsa-surveillance-is-abuse-must-end.shtml#c63 As for his version of what was intended, there was no lack of warnings from all of the public advocacy groups (EFF, ACLU, EPIC, CCR, et. al.), that the language rushed through in the Patriot Act could easily be interpreted as it has. They chose to ignore and fight vehemently to get this Act through at all costs with their most earnest convictions. To all of the Congress people who helped pass the Patriot Act, we should simply turn and give them the big middle finger knowing that regardless of their "intentions", they've messed with this country in more ways than imaginable.]]>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130209/02174421930/proposed-law-privacy-policies-must-be-less-than-100-words-says-336-word-bill.shtml#c94
Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:14:34 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130209/02174421930/proposed-law-privacy-policies-must-be-less-than-100-words-says-336-word-bill.shtml#c94Re: Ironichttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/02492821166/open-letter-to-human-synergistics-international-response-to-your-accusation-that-techdirt-is-infringing.shtml#c321
Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:25:36 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/02492821166/open-letter-to-human-synergistics-international-response-to-your-accusation-that-techdirt-is-infringing.shtml#c321This post needs a new title :)https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/02492821166/open-letter-to-human-synergistics-international-response-to-your-accusation-that-techdirt-is-infringing.shtml#c286
Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:23:06 PSThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/02492821166/open-letter-to-human-synergistics-international-response-to-your-accusation-that-techdirt-is-infringing.shtml#c286https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/20463920669/pete-townshend-makes-required-annual-blame-itunes-appearance-global-deathclock-reset.shtml#c105
Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:35:00 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/20463920669/pete-townshend-makes-required-annual-blame-itunes-appearance-global-deathclock-reset.shtml#c105https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/02541620247/malaysian-government-holding-service-providers-liable-actions-their-users.shtml#c57
Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:04:51 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/02541620247/malaysian-government-holding-service-providers-liable-actions-their-users.shtml#c57Re: Impacthttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml#c116
Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:53:42 PDThttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml#c116